The candidates agree that being nominated by political parties is a process that can compromise the independence and integrity of the high court -- at least in the perception of the public.

However, the barrage of advertising indicates partisan support with one set of advertising supporting Johnson, Kelley and McCormack, and another set of advertising promoting Markman, Zahra and O'Brien.

And many of the current's court decisions have been 4-3 along ideological lines.

The Michigan Supreme Court is the state's court of last resort on matters involving state law.

The justices say they'll agree to hear maybe 100 cases a year out of about 2,000 requests for a hearing -- one reason why they're relatively unknown to the general public.

The high court's other role is administrative over the state's lower courts.

All six of the major political nominees participated in interviews with The Oakland Press.

"I definitely have a problem with it, I definitely think it should be changed," says McCormack, a University of Michigan law school professor.

"I don't think partisan nominations helps produce a court that the public can have confidence in," she says.

Zahra, first appointed to the bench by Republican Gov. Rick Snyder to fill a vacancy last year, thinks Michigan Supreme Court justices should be appointed by the governor, perhaps subject to consent of the state Senate.

"This is an insane system, I mean it is unbelievable," says Zahra. "It's become more insane with Citizens United decision of the United States Supreme Court, which provides for money to be injected into the political process."

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions, clearing the way for the high-dollar advertising seen in many of this year's campaigns by groups not directly affiliated with any of the candidates.

"I've never been for election of judges, I don't think judges should be elected," says Zahra. "I believe it should be a pure appointment system and that it should be at the unfettered discretion of the governor.

"This system of going to political parties for nominations creates an appearance of partisanship."

O'Brien, nominated by Republicans for the high court, says she was uncomfortable with the process but that some type of vetting of Supreme Court nominees is in order.

"If we just had a primary with no type of vetting process at all, probably only people with a lot of money might be able to get the nomination," she says. "I do think we need to study the process and I'm open to suggestions."

Johnson, a district judge nominated by Democrats, says people expect the state's highest court to be above partisan politics.

"I think it has turned a little bit more biased looking, at least to the general public," Johnson says. "That doesn't bode well for us being a separate branch of government where the people expect us to be higher than partisan politics."

Johnson, however, believes that people should still be able to vote on the judge they want.

"Perhaps we should do it in the manner that we do other judges," shy says. "We don't do them in the partisan system whatsoever."

Taking the politics, and the money, out of judicial elections isn't that easy -- there aren't that many options.

Besides Michigan's system of party nominations to a nonpartisan ballot, some states rely on commissions to make recommendations to the governor who picks judges with consent of the Legislature. Some states have nonpartisan election of state supreme court judges.

Some states use the "Missouri Plan," where judges are appointed but stand for a retention election after every term where voters are asked if the judge should be retained or not.

That's a system that incumbent Justice Stephen Markman suggests Michigan may want to look at. Markman was first appointed to the bench in 1999, then elected.

Regardless of the method of selection, Kelley says the role of Supreme Court justices is to interpret the laws enacted by the Legislature within the framework of the state's Constitution.

"It's very clear what the law says in most cases," Kelley says. "Our job is to interpret what the Legislature intended, if it's not clear. If it's clear what they intended by the language of the statute, then that's the law."

Contact Charles Crumm at 248-745-4649, charlie.crumm@oakpress.com or follow him on Twitter @crummc and on Facebook. More information is at oaklandmichiganpolitics.blogspot.com. Keep up with the latest in local news by texting OPNews to 22700. Msg & Data Rates May Apply. Text HELP for help. Text STOP to cancel.